By Troy Ivan
ibc@ichibancrafter.com

If you’ve researched RSO (Rick Simpson Oil) or FECO (Full Extract Cannabis Oil), you’ve probably immediately noticed that everyone acts like a pro. They always claim they’ve been doing it for 20 years, then make bold assertions, rely on half-truths, and spread a flood of misinformation that seems endless. From miracle cure stories to terrible extraction advice, it’s impossible for anyone unfamiliar with the intricacies of extraction, chemistry, and biology involved to distinguish fact from fiction. In this post, we’re cutting through the noise and explaining the facts about the topics that are hardest for people to fully understand.

• Radical claims stated as facts
• Differences between RSO and FECO
• Ethanol vs. Isopropanol
• Importance of terpenes
• “Whole Plant” and “Use everything”
• Cannabis material suitable for production
• Decarboxylation for RSO/FECO
• Solvent recovery methods  
• Scammers and their manipulations

I wrote my first article on making RSO/FECO a decade ago in 2016, titled “RSO & FECO Using Ethanol Extraction: Home Healing” (new one coming soon).

Since then, there’s been a renaissance in cannabis knowledge and understanding. Yet, amid all that progress, people still cling to so much bad information about RSO that originated in the 1990s. We’ve learned a lot since Rick Simpson brought attention to cannabis oil, but a lot still remains unknown. I don’t have all the answers, but we’ll take a solid, evidence-based look at what these concentrates really are, what compounds they genuinely contain, what science currently supports, and, just as importantly, what is still uncertain. Even with these uncertainties, we can apply what we do know, using applicable science, a wealth of extraction experience, and sound reasoning, to clarify the most controversial RSO/FECO topics that are endlessly debated online. We’ll also confront the tougher realities and challenges of obtaining quality RSO/FECO, especially as bad actors exploit confusion, desperation, and ignorance for profit. The goal here isn’t hype; it’s clarity.

RADICAL CLAIMS STATED AS FACTS

There’s no denying that RSO and FECO have established a strong reputation in the cannabis community, especially for their role in treating cancer and other serious health problems. Stories often circulate: tumors shrinking, chronic conditions improving, lives being extended. These stories are compelling, and for many, they offer hope. However, it’s crucial to clearly distinguish between what is reported and what has been scientifically proven. Most of these claims are anecdotal, based on personal experiences that, while impactful, do not meet the standards of controlled, repeatable scientific evidence.

That doesn’t mean these outcomes aren’t credible, real, or worth exploring. In fact, many would argue, myself included, that this is a very interesting case of the public being ahead of formal medical opinion, filling an important gap that has seemingly been purposefully ignored. The endless stories of successful outcomes appear to clearly show that cannabis undeniably contains biologically active compounds like cannabinoids and terpenes that interact with the body in complex ways, and early-stage research has shown promising signs in areas like inflammation, pain, and even certain cancer-related mechanisms. However, translating those findings into definitive statements like “this cures cancer” is a major leap that current science simply hasn’t validated. When dealing with serious illness, that distinction matters a lot.

The risk isn’t in people choosing to try RSO/FECO; it’s in making critical health decisions based on claims presented as certainty rather than possibility. When something is framed as a guaranteed cure, it can cause people to delay or abandon clinically proven treatments or set unrealistic expectations. That gap between expectations and reality can have serious physical and emotional consequences.

A more grounded approach is to acknowledge both sides at once: these extracts show great promise for transformative therapeutic potential and successful outcomes sworn to by countless “cured” patients, but understand that substantive, medically supported evidence is still evolving. Using the cannabis extracts with cautious optimism, and a clear understanding of what is known versus what is believed, allows for better, more informed decision-making. When health is at stake, clarity matters just as much as hope.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RSO and FECO?

In the big picture, despite all the online debate, they are essentially the same thing. Where there was once a clear distinction at an early point when food-grade ethanol first became the popular solvent, that time has passed, and today the terms should be seen as pretty much interchangeable.

The issue with online debates is that people focusing on trivial details often lack a broader understanding of extraction methods, which is necessary to see the bigger picture. Extraction can be performed in many ways using various botanicals for purposes like flavoring, scenting, medicine, and more. Essentially, extraction involves collecting specific compounds from plants with an appropriate solvent. If the collected compounds are left in food-grade ethanol, they can be used directly as a tincture. If the tincture is further processed by removing the solvent, or “purging,” what remains is a concentrate made up of plant-derived compounds.

Cannabis extraction’s primary output is a concentrate called “cannabis oil,” or simply “oil.” Every form of cannabis concentrate—such as distillate, shatter, budder, crumble, wax, carts, and RSO/FECO—is made from cannabis oil. Besides the different final forms they take, these concentrates all share to differing degrees subsets of the same core compounds originally found in the cannabis plant: cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids, sugars, pigments, wax, lipids, and chlorophyll. The fewer compounds that are targeted for extraction, the more challenging it becomes to isolate them. 

Distillate is almost a pure, single-specific cannabinoid, usually THC at about 98% potency. Then, there are more “full-spectrum” concentrates that contain the full range of cannabinoids and terpene profiles from the cannabis strain used. Essentially, they only use what is found in the trichomes of the cannabis plant. Finally, traditional RSO/FECO are the most comprehensive, including any and all components, making them the easiest to produce.

Distillate: Primary extraction, solvent recovery, polishing (maybe), intensive cannabinoid isolation using fractional distillation.

Full Spectrum Concentrates: Targeted primary extraction, solvent recovery, polishing (maybe/probably), post-processing.

RSO/FECO: Aggressive primary extraction, solvent recovery.

The main point is that making distillate is the most complex and lengthy process, requiring specialized equipment and expertise. Clean dabs, clean cannabis oil, and other clean concentrates require steps to prevent the inclusion of what many consider undesirable components. This involves extra steps, knowledge, and effort. Then there’s the process of making FECO/RSO. When it comes to extraction, honestly, it couldn’t be simpler. Almost anyone can do it very well and, on their first try, produce something as good or better than what you see from many online “pros.” Making distillate or cleaner full-spectrum oil requires technique, precision, and experience to isolate and target trichome contents. FECO/RSO, on the other hand, only needs you to show up to class, and you’ll get an A. It doesn’t target anything for inclusion or exclusion: it just takes what it gets. 

(If you are interested in learning how to make RSO/FECO, my article “Ethanol Extraction: Complete Breakdown” explains the process in great detail.)

I would argue that RSO and FECO are produced for the same purpose, target the same components during extraction, and the well-purged final product consists of the same components; they are essentially the same. The heated debates often revolve around whether food-grade ethanol or isopropyl alcohol was used as a solvent. Making this distinction is important, and choosing the right solvent for your medicine matters. I’m not claiming that saying RSO was made from isopropanol and FECO from ethanol is historically inaccurate. The term RSO is so deeply ingrained in industry language that the solvent distinction has been lost. I would go one step further and say that most people these days say “RSO” and still expect it to be made from food-grade ethanol.

To more accurately illustrate their similarity, assuming residual solvent levels are purged to 1,000 ppm, RSO and FECO are 99.9% the same. The only barely noticeable difference is the solvent represented by the 1,000 ppm residual solvent level. I will discuss the solvent debate in the next section, but for now, the main point is that they are effectively the same, so people will misuse and interchange the terms RSO and FECO. Regardless of how the seller labels it, always verify how it was made to prevent confusion and confirm you are getting what you are comfortable with.

ETHANOL vs. ISOPROPANOL

Rick Simpson, the namesake of RSO, initially used a pretty nasty hydrocarbon called Naphtha as the extraction solvent for making oil. Later, after realizing what a terrible choice that was, he began advising people to use isopropanol instead. That was when amber or brownish RSO, made from a non-polar hydrocarbon, changed into the black cannabis oil made with isopropanol, widely recognized today as RSO.

The use of isopropanol eventually created a significant divide, with people switching to the “cleaner” food-grade ethanol as the solvent of choice to make their “medicine.” The substitute was is a very similar compound that, unlike isopropanol, is intended for human consumption. The debate between isopropanol and ethanol is hard to navigate because it appears simple on the surface, but truly understanding the issue requires examining chemistry, production methods, and certification standards. There’s a lot of technical information involved, leading to confusion and arguments from both sides that typically both lack a full understanding of the topic. I believe it’s best to start by identifying the common, broad misunderstandings, then move on to more specific regulations and applications.

The simple term “isopropanol alcohol” is often misunderstood and leads to alarmist claims like “toxic” and “poison” spreading through the internet. The term “rubbing alcohol” is constantly misused interchangeably with isopropanol. They are not the same. Isopropanol is a molecule, C3H8O, in a liquid state, just as water is H2O. It’s a single chemical compound. Rubbing alcohol, however, is isopropanol mixed with water and a denaturing agent. While high-grade USP isopropanol may or may not be an acceptable solvent for cannabis extraction, rubbing alcohol is definitely not because of the denaturing agents. 

Terms like “toxic” and “poison” are often used too quickly and are not accurate. If the issue arises from a misunderstanding of using rubbing alcohol, then yes, it is technically poison because denaturing agents are intentionally added to prevent ingestion. However, using the term toxic can be misleading because everything, even water, can be toxic at a certain dose. With extraction and the removal of the solvent, only a tiny amount of residual solvent remains, making a toxic dose impossible in a finished RSO product. When you see these terms emphasized in discussion, it usually indicates a lack of understanding of the bigger picture. That said, it is true that isopropanol is not intended for human consumption.
High-proof (190+), food-grade ethanol is very familiar to all of us because it’s in many products we use daily. It’s the alcohol found in spirits, cooking ingredients like vanilla and almond extracts, mouthwash, liquid medication, perfume, and hand sanitizer. It’s produced specifically for human consumption. There are no known adverse side effects from consuming food-grade ethanol except for alcoholism, complications from alcoholism, and alcohol poisoning. However, these issues do not apply to our use case, where the residual amounts are so small that they are measured in ppm, and the amount of concentrate consumed is also extremely small. The main drawback is that high-proof ethanol is heavily regulated and unavailable in some areas.

That leads us to the main point of evaluating high-grade USP isopropanol and high-proof, food-grade ethanol as solvents for extraction. The term “pharmaceutical grade” can be misleading if taken out of context. Standards like USP (United States Pharmacopeia) define acceptable purity based on intended use, not universal suitability. Isopropyl alcohol that meets USP criteria is designed for topical, cleaning, and manufacturing applications, where it often functions as a processing solvent, used temporarily and then removed. In that sense, cannabis extraction also falls into the same general category: a solvent used to dissolve target compounds and not intended to remain in the final product.

The distinction lies in how that assumption is enforced. In pharmaceutical and regulated food manufacturing, solvent use is paired with strict controls governed by frameworks like the ICH. These systems require validated processes that demonstrate consistent solvent removal and establish measurable residual limits in the final product. Isopropanol, for instance, is permitted as a Class 3 solvent with defined exposure thresholds, but only if residual levels are known, controlled, and verified. The safety model depends not just on the solvent itself, but also on the ability to prove how much of it and its related impurities remain.

A key technical difference between isopropanol and ethanol lies in how their impurity profiles are defined, especially for volatile components. USP isopropanol permits individual volatile impurities like acetone and related compounds at levels up to about 0.1% each, with total volatile impurities allowed up to roughly 1% (10,000 ppm). These impurities are expected to evaporate during normal use. Food-grade ethanol standards do not have a similar broad allowance; instead, volatile impurities are regulated through overall purity standards and analytical limits, resulting in much lower total volatile impurity levels in practice. For nonvolatile residue, which does not evaporate, ethanol is generally limited to around 0.001% (10 ppm), while isopropanol is usually permitted at higher levels, often between 0.002–0.005% (20–50 ppm).

Extraction processes introduce an extra factor: concentration. When a solvent evaporates after extraction, nonvolatile components and some trace impurities stay behind and can become more concentrated in the final product. Although this also happens in pharmaceutical processing, those systems are specifically designed and validated to account for it. In less controlled environments, the extent of solvent removal and the resulting residual levels are unlikely to be tested. This makes the initial impurity profile of the solvent more consequential, because small differences at the solvent stage can result in larger differences after concentration.

Finally, regulatory intent is crucial. Ethanol that meets food-grade or USP standards is regulated by frameworks such as the FDA and the FCC (Food Chemicals Codex), which explicitly consider ingestion as a route of exposure. Isopropanol, although acceptable as a processing solvent under controlled conditions, is not intended for ingestion, and its specifications reflect acceptable use in settings where it is removed and purged, with residuals tightly controlled. The difference between the two solvents lies not only in their processing use but also in how their impurity limits, toxicology, and residue management align with the requirements of the final application.

Besides the real risk of residual and concentrated production contamination from isopropanol, there are often less reliable complaints about metabolites like acetone and autoimmune reactions. The very low ppm levels of residual solvent in properly purged RSO/FECO, measured with the small amount of concentrate used, make this concern unlikely to pose a genuine health risk. Additionally, the human body actually produces acetone and is very efficient at eliminating such small amounts.

The complexity is real, and confusion is widespread. Choosing between RSO/FECO made with ethanol or isopropanol boils down to real-world constraints and considerations. Ethanol is clearly the better option if all conditions are equal. However, high-proof ethanol isn’t always accessible, which requires a shift in perspective and a consideration of trade-offs. If a person or loved one is ill and cannabis oil is needed, is it better to use the lesser of the two solvents or to completely forgo the medicine? That decision is up to each individual.

IMPORTANCE OF TERPENES

Many RSO/FECO discussions focus on selecting the right strains, primarily emphasizing the importance of terpenes. They focus on a terpene-driven “entourage effect,” in which terpenes work with cannabinoids in a specific psychoactive way. However, a closer look suggests the importance may be overstated. Terpenes and cannabinoids behave very differently in the body, particularly when taken orally. Cannabinoids like THC and CBD are exclusively fat-soluble, have more complex molecular structures, and are absorbed from the digestive tract into the bloodstream, where they interact strongly with the endocannabinoid system and its receptors. In contrast, terpenes are more volatile, less complex compounds that are metabolized and broken down more quickly, with some before they reach systemic circulation in significant amounts. Many are generally processed more like dietary aromatics than as bioactive compounds with lasting effects.

Having said that, let’s split some hairs to both confuse and clarify the topic at the same time. Terpenes fall into two groups, Monoterpenes and Sesquiterpenes. Monoterpenes are the lightest and generally metabolize very quickly. In reality, monoterpenes probably don’t survive the typical RSO/FECO making process anyway. Sesquiterpenes, on the other hand, are larger and heavier and can behave more like cannabinoids in terms of metabolic persistence, but only to a very limited extent. What that means is that, while cannabinoid-induced psychoactivity can persist for many hours, even the most persistent terpenes simply don’t last in the body for a fraction of that time.

This difference in absorption and metabolism makes it unlikely that terpenes contribute to psychoactive or therapeutic effects to the degree many people associate with them. While inhalation allows terpenes to enter the bloodstream directly, they are still present in very small amounts compared to cannabinoids and are quickly cleared from the body. For oral ingestion, the idea that these trace compounds are responsible for noticeable differences in the overall experience doesn’t hold up well under scrutiny. More reasonable to say is that the more robust sesquiterpenes may shape the onset and character of effects, but cannabinoids determine the overall magnitude and duration of the experience.

At best, the terpenes that survive production in oral RSO/FECO would have only a small and short-lived influence on the early pharmacokinetic curve. The entire experience is defined primarily by the cannabinoid profile and later dominated by the 11-hydroxy-THC conversion. Even small differences in the ratios of major cannabinoids like THC and CBD, or the presence of minor cannabinoids like CBG, CBC, or THCV, can meaningfully change the effects. These compounds directly interact with cannabinoid receptors and other signaling systems in well-documented, dose-dependent ways. Unlike terpenes, their pharmacology is clear, measurable, and impactful.

In other words, what people often attribute to terpene-driven “strain effects” may have some early, short-lived overlap with cannabinoids, but in the bigger picture, it is more likely the result of subtle yet important differences in cannabinoid composition. Focusing on cannabinoid profiles rather than terpenes may provide a more reliable way to predict how a product will feel overall.

Lastly, relying on the medicinal effects of terpenes from orally ingested RSO/FECO isn’t particularly reasonable, especially given how small and degraded those terpene fractions typically are after decarboxylation and processing. Even if terpenes offer meaningful benefits, the quantities that survive into a finished oil and then make it through digestion and first-pass metabolism are minimal and inconsistent. If someone truly believes specific terpenes are important for therapeutic outcomes, it makes far more sense to incorporate them directly and deliberately through diet or supplementation, where intake can be controlled, preserved, and delivered in meaningful amounts, rather than relying on trace, heat-altered remnants in a heavily processed extract.

“WHOLE PLANT” and “USE EVERYTHING”

The idea that you must use the “whole cannabis plant” to make high-quality RSO/FECO seems sensible and feels like a holistic approach. Sadly, the logic starts to fall apart when you actually follow the RSO/FECO production process step by step.

If “using the whole plant” and “use everything out of the plant” are truly the goal, then where are the fan leaves, roots, stalks, stems, fiber, and cellulose? These parts make up a significant, majority portion of the plant, yet they’re not utilized. From the very beginning, when preparing cannabis for extraction, we’re not actually talking about the literal whole plant but only selectively chosen parts believed to be more useful. That alone suggests this isn’t about “everything,” but about focusing on what’s perceived as more valuable.

Next, the small part of the cannabis plant that has been selected is processed through solvent extraction to produce RSO/FECO. Instead of keeping the chosen small part of the plant intact, specific compounds are dissolved out, and the solid plant material is completely filtered away. If the entire plant were truly necessary, why remove the physical plant structure at all? The common reason is that we need the concentrate for more potent dosing without consuming a large amount of plant material. Do you see where that quickly leads us? Again, we’re making intentional decisions and specific choices about what matters and what doesn’t.

The next major change is decarboxylation, where we intentionally modify the chemistry of cannabinoids. We usually apply heat to remove a carboxyl group, transforming the plant’s natural THCA into THC, which is a smaller molecule. This process fundamentally alters the natural molecule. It’s not about preserving the plant in its natural state; it’s about deliberately changing it to achieve a specific effect. That step alone contradicts the idea that the untouched “whole plant” is the ideal form.

During that heating process, along with solvent recovery, many delicate compounds are degraded, oxidized, or completely lost. Terpenes are largely driven off, and other plant constituents are significantly altered. What remains are the more stable components, primarily cannabinoids, along with waxes, lipids, and chlorophyll.

This raises an important question: what exactly is medicinal about the remaining non-cannabinoid components? Waxes, lipids, and chlorophyll are not exclusive to cannabis, and after significant heat exposure, they are far from their original form. If they were truly essential, you would expect a clear mechanism or consistent results linked to their presence, but that connection is rarely shown. Instead of being helpful, these components, especially chlorophyll, often cause stomach discomfort in different ways and can lead to green swamp belches. 

What remains is not even close to the “whole plant,” but a small part of it that has been selectively extracted, filtered, and significantly chemically altered. The process itself involves making decisions about what to keep, what to discard, and what to transform. Therefore, the idea that “everything” from the plant is necessary doesn’t match the reality of how the very same people who say this actually produce the RSO/FECO. 

I think it’s reasonable to ask: if we’re already applying logic and chemistry to narrow down and modify the plant, why stop there? Why not keep refining our understanding of which components actually contribute to the unique, cannabis specific, desired effects, instead of clinging to the vague and often misleading idea of the “whole plant”?

The point I’m trying to make here is that statements like “you have to get everything out of the plant” or “you have to use the whole plant” are completely disconnected from what actually ends up in RSO/FECO. Some may prefer cleaner cannabis oil, and others prefer products packed with plant material like RSO/FECO. Neither is necessarily “right” because we don’t yet have all the answers. But by ignoring nonsense terms like “whole plant,” focusing on what we can identify in the end product as most useful, and recognizing that there may be compounds we don’t even know about yet, everyone can make informed decisions based on their own needs and preferences.

CANNABIS MATERIAL SUITABLE FOR PRODUCTION

RSO/FECO is regarded as medicine, so it’s crucial to ensure the material used for extraction is high-quality, well-grown, and free of pesticides, chemicals, or mold. While quality material is important, there’s a common misconception that producing high-quality RSO/FECO requires top-shelf flower. This assumption isn’t accurate when considering what these extracts are and how they’re made. RSO/FECO is a full-spectrum, processed extract that undergoes decarboxylation and high-temperature, open-air, oxidative solvent recovery. These steps fundamentally alter the chemistry of the starting material. Many of the characteristics that define premium cannabis, volatile terpenes, delicate aromatics, and nuanced flavor compounds, are either degraded or completely driven off during this process.

Furthermore, even if some terpenes survive, their effect when taken orally is probably much less significant than often assumed. As mentioned earlier, terpenes are quickly broken down and don’t seem to reach the bloodstream in substantial amounts compared to cannabinoids. Therefore, even in the final oil, any remaining terpenes are unlikely to make a noticeable difference in the overall effect.

What’s left behind after processing are the heavier, non-volatile compounds like cannabinoids, waxes, lipids, and other heavier plant constituents. Importantly, those cannabinoids are not exclusive to pristine, hand-trimmed buds. Good trim and shake, often dismissed as lower grade, still contain significant concentrations of the plant’s full cannabinoid profile. In many cases, especially when sourced from well-grown plants, the cannabinoid content per dollar can actually be much higher in trim than in whole flower.

Once you understand that RSO/FECO production effectively strips away the very qualities that make “top-shelf” cannabis desirable, it becomes clear that using premium buds is often economically wasteful rather than beneficial. The final product isn’t preserving the aroma, flavor, or visual appeal that you paid a premium for, it’s reducing everything down to a dense, cannabinoid-rich oil where those distinctions no longer exist.

From a practical perspective, choosing good trim and shake makes a lot of sense. They contain the same core medicinal components at a much lower cost, without compromising the main purpose of the extract. Hearing a seller say, “I only use top-shelf nugs, so my product is more expensive,” is a major red flag. Even if they do use top-shelf nugs, it doesn’t mean the final product is better quality, and you shouldn’t be paying extra for it. It’s just an excuse to charge high prices. For anyone prioritizing function over appearance, the quality of the input material should be judged by cannabinoid content and cleanliness, not bag appeal.

DECARBOXYLATION FOR RSO/FECO

I won’t repeat what I’ve already covered in other articles about decarbing and its science, so if you’re unfamiliar with decarbing or want to learn more, I’ll include links to those articles at the end of this section. Here, I want to focus on how decarbing specifically relates to making RSO/FECO. If the goal is to maximize THC potency in the final product, cannabis should be decarbed before extraction, or the oil should be decarbed afterward. Many people incorrectly claim online that decarbing before or after extraction isn’t necessary because it occurs during the process. Ethanol recovery with a distiller works around 170°F or lower. In a vacuum system, that’s lowered all the way down to about 90°F. For comparison, in a past experiment, I worked with decarbing at 180°F, which took 3.5 hours to reach about 80% conversion. That means ethanol recovery at a temperature 10°F or more lower would significantly extend the time needed for full decarb, much more than the actual processing time.

People often overestimate how much decarb they’ve achieved with their RSO/FECO because the oil can still feel potent even with only partial decarb. Based on my previous data, we’ve seen that the first 50% of decarb happens quickly and easily. After that, each additional increment in decarbing conversion takes more and more time. Therefore, reaching maximum effectiveness and THC conversion requires focused effort.

I’ve heard concerns about overdoing the decarb and breaking down cannabinoids. This worry is valid and supported by science, but it’s often overstated. Converting THC to CBN significantly requires more time and effort than most realize. In typical RSO/FECO processing, even with higher-temperature distillation, the amount of THC degradation into CBN is minimal compared to the substantial loss of THCA converting to THC. The difference is quite clear.

There is another case for RSO/FECO that contains a wider range of cannabinoids, both unconverted THCA and converted THC. For this, only a partial decarb is necessary. The normal distiller operation results in exactly this, resulting in an RSO/FECO with both compound forms. The exact amount of each is impossible to determine without testing, but both will be present. If someone desires RSO/FECO with completely unconverted cannabinoids, that can only be achieved by producing it under vacuum with low-temperature ethanol recovery or natural evaporation.

Finally, a warning about using the tCheck devices to measure potency and decarb efficiency. They don’t work and can’t differentiate between cannabinoids. I’ve also heard from many users that it’s extremely inaccurate. If you’re making decisions based on testing, make sure to rely on a trusted lab.

Links to decarb articles:
Decarboxylation (Decarb) 101: Basic Understanding and at Home Method Comparison
https://ichibancrafter.com/2019/01/29/decarboxylation-decarb-101-basic-understanding-and-at-home-method-comparison/

Closed Wash Decarb (CWD): Activate Cannabinoids and Keep the Terpenes
https://ichibancrafter.com/2020/10/23/closed-wash-decarb-cwd-activate-cannabinoids-and-keep-the-terpenes/

Jar Tech Decarb to Keep the Terpenes: Real FECO, Carts, and Terpy Deliciousness
https://ichibancrafter.com/2021/05/02/jar-tech-decarb-to-keep-the-terpenes-real-feco-carts-and-terpy-deliciousness/

SOLVENT RECOVERY METHODS

There are different types of equipment and several methods for removing the solvent to produce RSO/FECO. Ethanol can naturally evaporate, but this process takes time, wastes a lot of ethanol, and can be dangerous. Alternatively, basic open-air, open-atmosphere tools that use heat to speed up evaporation, like crock pots, rice cookers, and water or spirit distillers, are available. The first two methods still waste expensive ethanol and pose a flammable vapor risk, but distillers have become popular because they are very affordable and can recover a significant portion of the ethanol for reuse. High-end systems operate under vacuum to greatly reduce processing temperatures, prevent oxygen exposure, and recover all the ethanol loaded into the system. These include rotary evaporators (rotovaps), DIY setups (instructions available at www.ichibancrafter.com), and my newly designed systems at Torr Kitchen (www.torrkitchen.com).

In reality, good medicine can be produced with any of these techniques. The different equipment vary widely in cost, complexity, safety, ethanol savings, and preservation of cannabis compounds. Comparing all of them would take too much time, so I want to focus on what are likely the two best options right now for those making RSO/FECO at home. I often get asked to explain the difference between using a distiller and a system like the vacuum-assisted Torr Kitchen’s, so here is a detailed look at understanding the equipment.

Operating Temperatures
Distillers work in ambient air and at high temperatures of approximately 173°F, which is the boiling point of ethanol in ambient air.

Torr Kitchen (TK) equipment uses vacuum to reduce the processing temperature to around 90°F, greatly enhancing compound preservation. Cooler processing results in a much better, high-quality product.

Dangerous Vapor Control and Recovery Efficiency
Distillers are open-air systems where hazardous vapors escape into the surrounding area, posing a fire risk. Its reclaim efficiency is approximately 70%.

In contrast, the TK equipment is a completely enclosed, sealed system where no vapor can escape, and it works at 100% efficiency. This underscores a major safety benefit.

Oxidation and Concentrate Quality
Because of its open-air design, distillers let oxygen mix with ethanol at high temperatures to speed up and encourage the oxidation of many cannabis compounds. 

A vacuum system is closed and prevents this.

Decarb and Compound Preservation
Decarboxylation happens uncontrollably in a distiller due to high temperatures, making the final result unpredictable. Combined with faster oxidation, this significantly lowers the quality of the final product. 

Vacuum systems operate at low temperatures where incidental decarboxylation doesn’t occur. This enables precise control and helps preserve valuable terpenes and delicate compounds during processing, resulting in high-quality end products.

Versatility In What Can Be Made
The high heat and environment of the distiller limit its use to only decarbed and somewhat degraded oil that can be used for edibles, topicals, and RSO/FECO.

In contrast, the low temperature and controlled environment of the vacuum system enable the production of a wide variety of higher-quality products. Cannabinoids can be preserved exactly as desired without conversion or degradation: CBDA, CBD, THCA, THC, and more. The TK vacuum system makes any kind of cannabis concentrate possible, such as high-quality dabs, carts, clean cannabis oil, premium oil for edibles, and top-shelf FECO/RSO.

Observe and Monitor Process
Distillers are not designed for producing oil, so you can’t see inside during the process.

The TK equipment is designed to allow direct viewing inside the vessel while the process is ongoing and to monitor its progress. Being able to see inside offers much better control in deciding when to stop the process.

Collection Safety and Ease
Distillers get very hot inside as the temperature spikes at the end. The hot metal and the unit’s bulky shape make removing the end contents a bit challenging, since it’s not designed for that purpose. 

The TK equipment is designed specifically to make this simple, with a standalone pot that’s easy to move and empty.

Multi-Use Design & Value
Distillers are designed for a very specific task: evaporating and collecting water or alcohol. They essentially perform only that one function.

The TK system components are designed for multi-use and value. Additional uses include filtration, primary extraction under vacuum, individual vacuum chambers, concentrate post-processing, food prep applications, and more.

Summary
The truth is that both distillers and TK equipment can be used to create cannabis concentrates, especially effective RSO/FECO for medical purposes. Given the price difference, distillers are a good option for many who only need to produce inexpensive, mid-quality RSO/FECO. Vacuum systems like TK equipment are designed to elevate that craft. Whether the extra cost is justified largely depends on how much value a user places on the differences outlined in this section.

SCAMMERS AND THEIR MANIPULATIONS

The increase in popularity of RSO and FECO has unfortunately led to a surge of online and social media scammers trying to exploit people seeking genuine help. If you come across big, bold claims, miracle cures, guaranteed results, or “exclusive” formulations, those are clear warning signs. Desperation is strong, especially when serious illness is involved, and that’s exactly what bad actors take advantage of. Some of these sellers might not even be offering real products at all, instead shipping diluted, mislabeled, or completely fake oils.

Even when the product is real, it’s important to stay grounded in reality. RSO/FECO is not a complex, proprietary creation; it’s the simplest cannabis concentrate to make. The process is straightforward, widely understood, and leaves little room for meaningful “secret sauce” innovation. That means, if made correctly, one person’s RSO/FECO closely resembles anyone else’s. Claims that one version is dramatically better, more “medicinal,” or uniquely effective are ALWAYS just marketing, not science.

Having said that, special emphasis must be placed on “if made correctly.” Making the best-quality RSO/FECO correctly involves using clean starting material, carefully decarbing, choosing a high-quality solvent, filtering thoroughly, recovering ethanol at low temperatures under vacuum, and purging thoroughly. While almost anyone can do this, not everyone can afford the equipment needed to recover ethanol at lower temperatures, so using a distiller and its higher temperatures for ethanol recovery will reduce the quality a bit, but it will still produce good, viable, effective medicine. Larger quality issues occur when there are additional compromises in material filtering, inadequate decarbing, or poor primary extraction, which cumulatively significantly lower quality. So, while making high-quality RSO isn’t difficult and anyone can do it, scammers and those who cut corners will quickly lower the overall quality.

Price is another major indicator. Because RSO/FECO is a very crude, broad-spectrum extract that indiscriminately pulls a wide range of compounds and usually results in lower potency than refined concentrates like dabs, they should not command premium prices. In many cases, they should actually be cheaper than cleaner, more refined cannabis oils. When you see high prices paired with claims of exclusivity or superiority, you’re not looking at a better product; you’re looking at a better sales pitch.

The truth is, if you have access to cannabis, making your own RSO/FECO is by far the most reliable and cost-effective option. If that’s not realistic, approaches like the one outlined in “Value at the Dispo: Make the Cheapest and Best Cannabis Edibles, FECO and RSO” offer a practical alternative that helps you avoid overpaying while still giving you control over what you’re consuming. Beyond that, there are ethical caregivers out there, people who genuinely want to help and support others. These individuals are worth their weight in gold and can be a trusted resource if you find the right one.

At the end of the day, you have choices. Make your own, work with a reputable caregiver, value the dispo approach, or buy RSO/FECO from a local dispensary if the prices are fair. What you don’t need to do is fall for pressure tactics, exaggerated claims, or emotional manipulation. Scammers rely on urgency and fear. Don’t give them that power. Stay informed, stay skeptical of anything that sounds too good to be true, and remember that real value in this space comes from transparency and simplicity, not hype.

UNTIL NEXT TIME

Well, my friends, I hope that was helpful. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to add a comment, and I’ll be sure to answer. For more interactive and community participation, join the “IchiBan’s Extraction Lounge: Clean Cannabis Oil, RSO, FECO Crafting” group.

It’s a very well-moderated space (if I do say so myself) where negative internet influences and nonsense are not tolerated and are quickly vanquished. Most importantly, no one will try to scam you by selling RSO/FECO. The group focuses on honest guidance for those new to cannabis extractions, like RSO/FECO, and who have questions. We specialize in clear, honest, and informed answers. Feel free to join if you want to check it out.